President Ronald Reagan, embodying the traditional conservative ideology of federalism, stated: “All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.” But amidst the rubble of the Eaton and Palisades fires, a new conservative tradition seems to have taken hold in the White House. California, a historically wildfire-prone state, is once again aflame, and its effects are far-reaching as politicians seek to stoke the flames of partisan politics.
On January 7, 2025, a small brushfire in the Pacific Palisades rapidly grew to consume much of the Los Angeles neighborhood, later accompanied by a fledgling fire in Eaton Canyon. Both fires tore through a combined 37,000 acres of California land, claiming the lives of around 28 residents and causing up to an estimated $275 billion in damage. Within hours, state and local organizations sprang into action, containing the fires and preparing for the reconstruction of a destroyed Los Angeles.
Although devastating to local citizens, concerns surrounding the future reconstruction of LA should not be limited to those directly affected by the natural disaster—the consequences of the recent fires should be on the minds of all Americans as the groundwork is being laid for the expansion of federal power at the cost of each states’ residents. Now, out of the still-warm ashes of the Pacific Palisades, Donald Trump seeks to exert national control over local politics, inverting the small government values historically heralded by his conservative base. Through a gradual progression across recent conservative administrations—exponential now during the Trump administration—modern Republicans, the former protectors of state’s rights, have become proponents of big government. This transition is stark amid political dialogue about federal aid to those affected by the recent fires.
Under the leadership of Ronald Reagan, the Republican party poised itself as the champion of states’ rights—often at the expense of limiting the federal government. Following up on the conservative ideal of limited federal government, Reagan reduced income taxes and made cuts to major federal programs like Food Stamps. Scaling back these federal programs helped to devolve national authority back to the states. Historically, the conservative base has become synonymous with state sovereignty and limited federal influence.
After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, George W. Bush’s administration greatly expanded the powers of the federal government, specifically within the Executive branch. Bush signed the USA Patriot Act, expanding federal authority to monitor civilians to further his ‘War on Terror.’ This act posed a turning point in the conservative ideological transition, expanding federal power at the expense of the states through the states’ very monomers–their citizens.
Historically, conditional aid has been apolitical, solely addressing measures directly related to natural disasters. In 2005, after Hurricane Katrina killed 1,833 people and caused approximately $108 billion in damage, many southern states desperately required federal aid—much as Los Angeles does now. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the primary agency for distributing emergency aid, surveyed states like Mississippi and administered federal funds on the condition of adopting more hurricane-resilient building codes. In 2005, these conditions focused on mitigating a similar disaster, not furthering a partisan agenda.
Now, a Republican once again occupies the White House, and the returning President seeks to expand executive power at the expense of state sovereignty. After the recent Los Angeles fires—and to the surprise of many Los Angeles residents—federal disaster relief has quickly become contentious and polarized, transcending mere discussions of survival. As President Trump and other conservatives discuss conditioning federal aid on the adjustment of state laws, Republicans continue to expand federal power while shattering decades of precedent.
With the 2025 California fires, President Trump attempts to impose his federal agenda on state legislatures through partisan-conditional disaster relief—a dramatic departure from the traditional conservative ideology of state independence. Specifically, Trump has requested California change its voter ID laws in return for helping rebuild a destroyed community. Republican Speaker Mike Johnson, in agreement, cited the need for “election security in California.” The Republican party, under the leadership of President Trump, has put a political price tag on lifesaving disaster relief for everyday Americans.
The President’s expansion of federal power through the coercive power of federal aid goes beyond disaster relief. In a recent meeting between Trump and multiple state governors, Trump asked the governor of Maine if she planned to comply with an existing executive order “banning transgender athletes from women’s sports.” When Maine Governor Janet Mills stated her sole loyalty to state and federal law, Trump threatened to impound all federal funding for her state. President Trump’s statements suggest that he believes he can withhold federal funding in general, not just for disaster relief, to states that do not comply with his policy demands.
Reagan Republicans believed the federal government should enable the states to better govern themselves. However, under Trump, that same party seeks to commandeer state policy through federal authority. In this way, aid becomes less of an obligation on the behalf of the federal government and more of a privilege afforded to compliant states. Ironically enough, this diminishment of state power feeds the expansion of the national government, a now conservative position likely unrecognizable to Reagan Republicans.